NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSIAH ENGLISH III, No. 18-16258 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03221-GMS-JZB v. MEMORANDUM* THEODORE CAMPAGNOLO, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge in his individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state pretrial detainee Josiah English, III, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his state court grand jury and child custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins.

Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed English’s action as barred under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.” Id. at 758-59 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases, and explaining that “the date for determining whether Younger applies is the date the federal action is filed” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

English’s request for a temporary restraining order, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

English’s motion for clarification (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16258